For as much as people often consider their car an extension of their personality, the automotive world is strikingly conservative. Sure, automakers like to wow us with out-of-this-world concepts, but you almost never see those in showrooms.

Every so often, though, a vice president gets a few too many drinks in him and says, "Sure, what the heck."Once it's too late to cancel the project, the marketing people start biting their nails and wondering how they're supposed to sell the public on a car with three doors. Invariably, they decide to target younger buyers looking for a way to disassociate themselves from their parents.

These segment-defying cars don't really have direct competitors. If you're a marketing guy trying to convince a millennial or a hipster that a car is as nonconformist as it gets, that's an asset. If you're a car magazine trying to set up a comparison test, it's a headache. We've got nothing against quirky cars. In fact, we're fans of the cars that try something different, but that doesn't make our planning meetings any easier.After a few cocktails of our own, the solution seemed clear. We'd just throw all the oddballs into one comparison. While that sounds like a cop-out, it's actually an elegant little fix. These youth-targeted rides all carry a youth-friendly base price of about $20,000 or less. So we put ourselves in the shoes of the recent high school/college grad with a few bucks from Mom and Dad who wants a sporty ride, and wouldn't be caught dead in the same Corolla S all their friends drive.

SIXTH PLACE: Scion tCLots of space and lots of power, but falls down when you take a corner.

Bench racing is a time-honored tradition in autodom.We engage in it as much as you do, and when we started gathering the specs here, the Scion looked the clear favorite. The most horsepower in the test, the lowest as-tested price, and the only contender to offer seating for five. So what went wrong?True, the Scion offers a trunk big enough for hauling bags of clothes to your new studio apartment, and was one of two contenders with a back seat that could accommodate six-footers (the other was the Beetle). It was also the clear winner at the dragstrip and obviously the most powerful from behind the wheel. The problem is, that's all it's got. Funky C-pillar and didn't-expect-it liftback hatch aside, the tC is the least quirky car of the bunch. For as much as Scion projects a counterculture image, the tC is pretty much a by-the-numbers coupe, and based on our tester, not a very good one.

We can only hope the car Scion sent us is not representative of all tCs, because our tester was a mess. Ignoring superficial nits like the trashed paint, missing engine cover, and ill-fitting glovebox, the tC was plagued with driveability issues. It rode like an old truck, crashing over bumps and transmitting every decibel of road and tire noise into the interior. It shook so violently during acceleration testing, it vibrated the windshield wiper stalk into the "on" position. In canyons, the tC flopped around the corners, while the slow steering returned no feedback and the tires gave up what may be the first recorded case of lift-throttle understeer. Judges were unanimous, and the tC dropped from on-paper favorite to dead last.

FIFTH PLACE: Fiat 500Charismatic to the nth degree, but doesn't have practicality or handling chops for this group.

The Cinquecento is a tough car to pin down. You can't help but smile when you look at it, or when you drive it. It possesses an endearing charm. This phenomenon was no more evident than when we debated the finishing order. No one wanted to be the guy who relegated the cute little Fiat to fifth place, but no one could justify putting it ahead of the others.While the Fiat satisfied our style criteria without breaking a sweat, it struggled everywhere else. With its little-bitty trunk and vestigial rear seats, the Fiat isn't practical by any stretch. You certainly won't be bringing home your new Ikea bookshelf in this one. You also won't be bringing more than one friend along anywhere.

The Fiat's other failing was in the drive. A short wheelbase combined with a narrow footprint and a sport-tuned suspension conspire to give the car a bouncy ride that keeps your head tossing constantly on the freeway. Unfortunately, that didn't translate into fun in the hills, either. While the 500 is incredibly nimble, it tends to bounce around over bumps and is quick to understeer when pressed. Exacerbating everything was the driving position, which felt like driving from a bar stool.

Add to that an as-tested price of over $19,000 for the smallest car here, and third-place fuel economy, and you can see why as much as we like the Fiat by itself, it wasn't a standout in this group.

FOURTH PLACE: Hyundai VelosterWins on quirkiness hands-down, and is practical to boot, but the body makes promises the chassis can't keep.

Were this comparison to be determined solely by the number of turned heads, the Veloster would win hands-down. Everywhere we went, people stopped to stare at the sporty-looking Hyundai. Maybe it was the Chernobyl green paint, maybe it was the third door, but whatever it was, it got folks' attention.The Hyundai's fourth-place finish is due entirely to its failure to deliver. The bulging fenders, fast roof, and rubber band tires promise a sporty ride, but it isn't there. Instead, the Veloster rides harder than you'd expect with no discernable payback in handling. It's not eager to turn in, and when it does, it feels like the front end is all rubber. The car pitches and bounces and can't hold an arc through a turn.

Add to that a lethargic engine and you've got the recipe for basic transportation, not a sports car. Despite having the third-highest horsepower rating, the Veloster was achingly slow in nearly all circumstances. The engine is slow to rev and then you're disappointed because there's not much more power up there.Top-gear acceleration is nonexistent, so you'll be working the shifter quite a bit, and the square knob will give you bad visions of 1980s Mustangs. The real letdown, though, was the fuel economy, as the Veloster was the only car in the test whose observed fuel economy was lower than its EPA city rating.If only it drove better, we'd be singing a different tune. The Veloster is an otherwise strong contender, offering a big trunk, seating for four sub-six-foot adults (if you can get to that fourth seat), lots of low-cost options, and a great warranty for first-time buyers. Alas, the cool factor wears off when you lose a stoplight drag race to a Camry.

i get the basic one 17'000 manual transmission and i think is a bargain for all the gadgets the car come whit basic price. i live in florida and my daily commuter is 65 miles which 30% are city i am averaging 38-40 mpg and is regular gas. i drive not faster than 70 to preserve gas

i didn't take it to the track yet but i will. but so far i like the way it handle in the tide curves

in 2004 i bought a cooper s have it for 4 years Love it! i only used for the track and weakened i drove true atlanta and the dragon mountains love it

-i was considering a regular cooper but the basic one the 20.000 i didn't like the look and the one i like was regular cooper but the price 25 700

a friend told mer about the veloster i when to check it out and for the price i love it too

i didn't even drive it . i went with the sales person and negociated and deal and the more i drive the car the more i like it.

yes is not a mini but tech par and the regular gas no premium ,price and warranty i think is a bargain

other cars test fiat 500,, chevrolet sonic , new nissan sentra ,mazda 3 like the mpg but the body is old ,

honda didn't even considered i don't like the new hondas, toyotas (corolla, yaris) great cars but i think they lost the orison

I don't know why Tc is on the bottom anyway. It's sporty and it's the fastest car among the group. Just because it's interior is cheap? I own the Veloster and it does get a lot of head turns and praises. It's everything I wanted except for the performance and mpg. I think it's better and more practical than a CRZ, though they very similar in price range and in dimension wise. The Mini is just an aging car even thought it has high ratings.

I completely disagree with the Scion tC review. I just bought a brand new 2012 Scion tC Release 7.0 and it is one of the best/sporty cheap cars I have ever driven! I have yet to have any problems with it and when you take it down a drag strip there was no shaking problems or anything! The ride is a little rough, kind of like the VW Golf, but that is expected because of the sporty low profile tires. Other than that I love this car and think it got a bad review on here!

Who was driving these cars? Who is reviewing these cars? Seriously, with all your years of experience you put out a half ass review that is about as comprehensive as a children's TV show.I love how you ignore the fact that Honda's IMA is over 10 years old and once the battery goes dry so does the electric boost in power. Fast forward 70k miles when the battery pack is unbalanced and the car spends more time force charging than making power.The Beetle is average in all ways, yet manages second? The Veloster has poor turn in? Did your test car have poor tire inflation or the alignment was off? The car's turn in is razor sharp compared to the others. It also has virtually no understeer and can be rotated and trail braked so easily it makes the other cars seem like Corolla's.The Mini, well it's not really a Mini anymore but I get it. Bottom line maybe actually test the cars outside a parking lot and you might get a clear picture.

@_Redline_ I think we have different measurements of a manufactures sportiness which also means I don't think we're not going to agree. You are correct that Toyota has had some standout rear-wheel drive sports cars in the past, but just like you wouldn't compare a S2000 to an MR2, the classes don't always match up. What I'm talking about is looking at the whole of what all the cars that a company makes. Not looking at top-spec models, would you choose a base Toyota Yaris or a Honda Fit? The reviews will pretty consistently say the Fit is more fun to drive. Or a base Corolla or a Civic? Reviewers consistently lump praise of Honda manuals as a benchmark for shifters, no matter the price. When I go autocrossing, Hondas ALWAYS outnumber Toyotas. There are always tons of S2000s, old CR-Xs, Civics of all ages, and a few Preludes. You rarely see Toyotas besides the MR2 or a Celica or occasional Scion. It speaks volumes as the measurement of a brand's sportiness when it is the choice of weekend racers.

bestill- my friends accord has a 6k redline, my celica has an 8k redline how is it again that eco hondas have stratospherically higher redlines than any toyota? You also neglected the MR2 and Celica aside from the Supra, FT86 and 2000GT. The MR2 is miles ahead of any Prelude, or Civic. The S2000 doesn't count as a competitor considering it was $15,000 more expensive. Again, the tC>CR-Z in terms of usability and enjoyability. Ive driven both.The civic Si is hardly a benchmark for sportiness. Its a Civic, thats all it will ever be. Aside from the S2K and NSX Honda hasn't built a real RWD sports car. Toyota had the Supra, MR2 and Celica GT-4. Im sorry Honda can't win me over on a marginally better motor alone.

Wow...what a collection of really unappealing cars--overpriced, minimal utility, minimal performance. Two of them (including the "winner") even require premium gas---for what benefit??? I'd take a manual trans 5 door Ford Fiesta any day over these silly things.

You miss the point bestill. If a car has a backseat but does it poorly (ala Fiat 500), criticism is warranted. No one is going to buy a CR-Z expecting a useful backseat, but it is useful to know how good a feature is on a car that offers it.As for the fuel economy of the CR-Z, who cares? I'm not defending it. As I stated, I think the finishing order here was justified based upon the evaluation criteria - the Mini earned it. To me, it's really a matter of the Mini just having an exceptional powertrain. It was second quickest and had the second best economy (by just a hair). The CR-Z did do better than I expected. It was just behind the Mini acceleration wise and was actually travelling faster at the quarter mile (perhaps geared too tall for economy. While the big motor Scion was the run away outlier on the acceleration front, the Mini and the CR-Z were clearly duking it out for powertrain honors when you include economy.Either way, no indication of MT bias to me.

@church123 It's also stupid to criticize a car with a small back seat for being impractical when there's a two seater in the comparison. Why does the CR-Z need a hybrid drive train to acheive the same mileage as the Mini? The hybrid CR-Z makes no sense. If they offered a lighter purely ICE powered version maybe.

@Todd_Bianco And a reflection on your last comment, "Sure it was fun; but you can only ride Mr. Toad's Wild Ride so many times before it gets tired and punishing." There is a reason why I now own my second MINI and why two of my coworkers decided to get another MINI when their leases were up. For me it is because after a long day at work, driving home in my MINI puts a huge smile on my face that few other cars could. It is fun, cheeky, infinitely customizable, economical, practical for the size, safe, tied in the US for KBB highest resale value for compact cars (with Honda Civic) and it is as comfortable as I expected it to be. I'm already dreaming up what my third MINI (the coupe) will be like. MINIs aren't for everyone, apparently not for you, but for the young and young-at-heart for which this article is targeting, they are pretty amazing cars.

@Todd_Bianco Let's continue the reflection on your usual comments: "uncomfortable seats" This is hit or miss for some people and the only semi-resonable thing you said. Myself, two male & four female coworkers that also own MINIs (1 - 30yr old, 2 - 50 yr old) find them comfortable. I have been in the back seat on a trip from Boston to NYC & I would agree they are NOT designed for long trips. "mediocre fuel economy", hmmm, once again are you talking about your S or JCW? The authors found the MINI tied for 2nd highest fuel economy of the group, only behind the hybrid by .1mpg. Yes, the tank is small but almost 40mpg isn't bad and on the highway, I've gotten low-mid 30s in my JCW S. "a cabin so loud at speed you have to shout to be heard" LOL! It is starting to sound like your MINI was a pre-2007 model as those could be loud but I've never had to shout in mine. Last winter my roommate and I had a quick 80-90mph+ emergency trip from a ski slope and was surprised how much quieter the new MINIs are at speed

@Todd_Bianco I gotta say that your comment is way off base. If this review was comparing $38k euro small sports cars, yes the MINI would come off as loud and harsh against any 3-series or C-class. There is no need to be bitter because you made the decision to buy a car that didn't fulfill the qualities you value. Let's respond: "Horribly harsh ride", I commute 30-40min a day in a MINI with the JCW (harshest) suspension in pothole laden Boston and it is very taut but I expect that and my 30-year old body doesn't find it uncomfortable. "Cement tires", performance tires are standard but non-performance all-seasons are an option, which is one of the benefits of buying a MINI: choice. If you don't like run flats, when they wear out replace them with non-runflats like I did for a much more comfortable ride. "Uncontrolled torque steer" from a non-S Cooper? Did you notice what car they are reviewing? This isn't a JCW. Even the JCW doesn't have that bad of torque steer and the EDLC significantly reduces it.

@JoelW Sorry to hear about [your?] issues with a MINI transmission. If this review was about 6 year old used cars I would completely agree with you and tell anyone to stay away from the CVT autos and 5 speed midlands manuals in early non-S Coopers. They were pretty much crap. However this review is about new MINIs and the Getrag 6 speed manuals and 6 speed Aisin autos are pretty bulletproof.

@757driver Sounds like a nice present! It depends on your intended gift recipient, but I wouldn't count out cars that require premium fuel like the Fiat and MINI. My MINI was the first car I owned and the $.20 more per gallon was a non-issue given its other qualities. If I was ever short of cash, the car takes regular although the computer reduces power to prevent knocking. It doesn't kill it as I can attest.

@_Redline_ It is interesting that you think that Hondas are more boring than Toyotas? Outside of the Toyota Supra, the new FT-86 and 2000GT, Toyota makes cars that are barely more interesting than Buicks. Even the most economical Honda VTEC engines are fun to rev and have a stratospheric redline compared to any Toyota. The authors even elude to how bland Toyotas are by describing the hip shopper that, "wouldn't be caught dead in the same Corolla S all their friends drive." The Toyota Corolla S is a reliable car, but is no sportier than a Corolla because it is a Corolla with plastic body cladding. If you want a sporty Civic, you buy an Si which is regularly praised for being a benchmark of sportiness. Honda is known for reasonably sporty and well engineered cars. Toyota is known for reliability and that is about it. For the intended audience of a youth looking for a sporty ride, Toyota isn't it.

@bestill In regards to the surprise of the CR-Z finishing second, it is definitely down to perceived expectations of the previous reviewers. Honda hyped at CR-Z a lot, some people expected better mileage and others expected more sport, but it is a decent compromise on both fronts: one of the most fun to drive of [economy] cars here and with the best fuel mileage (it just doesn't excel as either a "sports" car or as a high-mileage hybrid). Even the reviewers stated "Like so many vehicles before it, the CR-Z got a bum rap because it didn't meet everyone's preconceived notions of what it should be." In regards to rear seat specs, numbers are nowhere near the whole story as the author alludes to when they start, "Bench racing is a time-honored tradition in autodom. We engage in it as much as you do..." but the most measured legroom doesn't necessarily mean the most comfortable or practical back seat.

@bestill - rear seat room is about more than legroom, or measurements in general. That said, the Fiat is low on shoulder room in the rear. It also has the smallest front leg room which is often means that the front seat must be moved all the way back compromising usable rear leg room.Regardless, there's a lot more to complain about with the Fiat than just the rear seat. And these are quirky vehicles. Criticizing a 2-seater for not having a rear seat is stupid if you've decided to include it in the first place.

I'm really surprised by the second place finish of the CR-Z. I've never read anything positive about the car in the past, and suddenly it's not so bad. While the four seat 500 got severe critcism for it's impracticality, the two seat CR-Z that can't accomodate a driver over six feet got a pass. I also noticed in the specs the "vestigial" rear seat legroom of the 500 is equal to the Veloster, and is greater than the Beetle or Mini. The CR-Z acheived the same fuel economy of the non-hybrid Mini. I think one of the marketing guys at Honda may be moonlighting at MT.

I don't know what tC you were driving but it was NOTHING like mine. It handles very well, pretty neutral for a FWD.I'm a gearhead and had an SCCA license(F/P). I've now added the TRD springs and it handles even better (looks good, too).

Ill take the Scion, I like the looks, its the most practical, the best value and if the track record holds it'll be the most reliable. My mom had a 2002 new beetle and that thing was a turd. It broke down every other month and that wouldn't have bothered me had the VW dealers in the area not been such dicks. They wouldn't cover anything even with the car being new. So we just said "up yours VW" and bought Toyotas. Its been great so far. The Hyundai also seems to be a good choice for a daily driver but I hate the styling. The CR-Z is a Honda so it'll be just as boring if not more than the Scion, only its uglier so no thank you. The Mini will cost an arm and a leg if it does break, the Fiat is a chick car so thats out as well. Yep.

I'm keeping an eye on this segment for a possible graduation present for a young relative. The Mini is a no-show for me, I wouldn't hand the keys to an 18-year-old for anything needing premium fuel. Both Honda and VW have winners here. Since the idea of a rematch has already been brought up, I'd vote to include a Sonic RS and a Fiesta ST.

church123I agree. The reviews on the Sonata Hybrid/Kia Optima Hybrid have been less than stellar, and the Veloster isn't setting the world on fire.Hyundai has shot it's load, not it's time for the big boys to strike backBD

I'm on my second MINI. My first was an 06 MINI Cooper S. Loved it, next to no issues. Messed up the electrical system by leaving the sunroof open all night during torrential rain. I presently own a 2111 MINI "justacooper" and continue to be in love with the car. The Cooper comes with standard tires which I prefer to the hard riding runflats of the S. The decision to get a regular Cooper was budgetary. The standard Cooper is terrific fun. The build quality surpasses anything in it's class True, options are very expensive. My car was bought off the lot as a near leftover this past summer so I took the $750 Harmon Kardon sound system. I would have chosen the dual pane panoramic sunroof and the heated seat/outside windows anyway because my S had those. An average selection of options will bring a standard Cooper to about $25,000. Worth every penny. Had a Beetle (99) and it broke very week. Now, that was a piece of crap.

Can't really argue with the results here. The Mini seems to do everything that the CR-Z does, but adds in sportier tires and a back seat. Sure, there are a lot of Mini reliability horror stories, but that's not what a new car test from a mag like MT is looking at.Two other things - 1) I'd like to see the TC retested. I drove the new one, and while I found the interior cheap, I thought the driving experience was pretty solid. Not necessarily enough to win in this comparo (the engine has some serious go, but the transmission hampers it), but certainly better than what MT was handed. 2) I'm feeling more than a bit of schadenfreude about the Veloster. Seems as though the wheels are starting to fall off the Hyundai bandwagon. Cubic ad dollars and guerilla forum marketing can only pump up the balloon for so long before reality bites you in the ass.

In a small car, where room and/or power is lacking, all you've got left is "fun-to-drive". I'm amazed at how many in this field fail miserably on the road course! Cutesy and trendy wear off quick once your first payment is due, and low fuel consumption has been reduced to a given as there are mid-sizers that achieve similar numbers.

My friend bought a Mini for his wife a couple of years ago. They both said it was the biggest piece of crap and most uncomfortable thing they had ever had. It sits in their garage and is not used. They are looking forward to trading it for something practical and reliable. It's a sharp little car and still looks new. Instead, they drive their X5 that has 150,000 miles on it.

Such timing!I have owned two Mini Cooper S models, a hard top and a convertible. Typically I change cars ever 12-18 months.For me, the Honda lacks soul (think Kia grabbed it).The Fiat is a blast to drive: get the stick, push 'sport' and turn off the ESC.In one day I tested the Mini Cooper, Mini Cooper S, Mini Cooper AWD, Fiat 500, and the VW Beetle (reg and turbo).I really wanted to like the Mini, but I'm over the harsh ride and quirky interior. To get options on a Mini you need a fat checkbook.A friend and I went to each buy a Fiat POP. I had mine picked out, but wanted the 15" alloy wheels. I offered to pay $500 for the upgrade (use same tires), as the wheels list for about $250 each. The added profit on the car is $349 (doc fee..). I thought it was a reasonable request. My friend wanted something of similar value added to his car. We had our checkbooks. The dealer wanted $2,000 for the alloy wheels.We both went to VW. He bought a stick Golf TDI:Test this car! I got a great deal on a Turbo: love it!

Gee, my MINI cost $38k and I still hated it. Sure it was fun; but you can only ride Mr. Toad's Wild Ride so many times before it gets tired and punishing. A horrible harsh ride, cement tires, uncomfortable seats, a cabin so loud at speed you have to shout to be heard and uncontrolled torque steer coupled with mediocre fuel economy all conspire to make the MINI a long-term disaster. The two year lease couldn't end fast enough.MT should reconsider this comparison after VW comes out with the Beetle R shown in only light disguise at the LA Auto Show.

Very good review, and an interesting comparison test. The outcome was somewhat of a forgone conclusion - except for the tC being so dreadful - and I doubt many readers thought that the Mini wouldn't win. It'd be the first car on my list, as well.

Mini - the price is fair?!!!! No one cares about opinions, everybody's got em like buttholes, but that opinion is bordering on ridiculous. With full options, the Mini is pushing past 30k and creeping into A4 prices.

Poor Scion. If they want good press (ie better sales), they should send MT a younger newer car! I'm sure a fresh car would have done much better.Also, it competes more with the Civic coup and Kia Koup.

Pretty easy to handicap this oneScion was the fastest, so I am surprised at last, but it's too ugly to winFiat is too gayVeloster is trying to set a record for ugly, and it's weak to bootBeetle is improving, but can't win being the heaviest, and with that sorry I-5 lawn mower engineThe CRZ I've driven , and I know it has handle, but is too light in the loafers, and the back seat is an abominationMini is the best driver, very roomy, price is fair, and has cache. Just get that extended warranty, because it's quality rep is as bad as it's drive is good.BD